swansont

Please, no. I think everybody understands that you can make a self-consistent substitution of independent units. It's precisely because you can't validly substitute length for charge because they describe different things (they are, in a sense, orthogonal) that you can make this swap without a contradiction in unit consistency. Everybody can be named Bruce. So what? Where's the science? Where is your model that can be used to predict behavior?

What do you mean by "keeps it going"?

Time does not have dimensions of L^4 You can't just make stuff up

! Moderator Note Your "rebuttal" to previous posts contained no science. Now we have trolling. Seeing as your original question was adequately answered, there is no reason to continue this - thread closed.

But you said: Dirac used the classic radius. But he did not pretend to be accurate. He only noticed that the ratio of the classical radius to the radius of the Universe gives a value of 10 ^ 40. The same value is given by the ratio of the roots of the masses of the electron and the Universe. r -radius must be gravitational. If you make the comparison, you are using the classical electron radius Also the radius of the observable universe is not constant, so any comparison to constants that one deems meaningful has to just be accidental, since that ratio changes in time.

Neither of these are true. And none of your post addresses the use of the classical electron radius.

I don’t see how that’s a valid conclusion. How can you determine that the levels wouldn’t be even higher if we were not attempting to reduce emissions by looking at the graph?

I think there are questions about whether there was interference from non-experts.

My plan is to let the experts do their thing. As usual.

Not necessarily commensurate with footprints of already-developed countries, since power generation available today can have a much smaller carbon footprint. For infrastructure put in place 30 years ago you didn’t have the “green” options you have today, so there is the option of installing solar and wind, and having it be a larger fraction of total power than is present in many developed nations, and the things that use electricity tend to be more efficient these days (e.g. LED vs incandescent lighting)

No, AFAICT that’s not what it said. They compared it to “their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk” which is not the risk of becoming ill with COVID. The were comparing (sort of) risks of being hospitalized. Unless you can say with certainty that COVID will go away soon, the 120-day risk is also not the total risk of hospitalization.

Why focus on efforts that will have minimal effect? The population explosion is happening where GHG emissions are smallest. The IPCC does not do research. Yes, population growth…in the past. We are paying price for having the resulting large population in developed countries. But attacking current population growth won’t change that, because those industrial country growth rates have already changed.

The upshot if all this is that this is a short-term, not long-term, side effect. And COVID can cause it https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25133462-800-myocarditis-is-more-common-after-covid-19-infection-than-vaccination/ Indeed.

! Moderator Note People might downvote for a number of reasons; you need not have offended anyone. It could be that they think you’ve made a bad argument, but don’t wish to engage. Again, for a number of reasons. Their motivations are their own. Regardless, this is off-topic and does not advance any discussion (unless it’s in a thread on the reputation system).

These already exist. For about 20 years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol They add more when large crowds are expected

Well the good news is that the organic birth rate in the largest per-capita GHG offender (the US) the birth rate is low enough that it's less than 2 kids for each woman. Similarly for China, and a lot of developed nations. So maybe the IPCC recognized this and realized there's not a lot of leverage here

We know the relationship between time and motion, and it is not t = c-v This can't be an equality, because the units of time and the units of speed are not the same.

One might ask what protocols were adopted when/after this branching occurred.

Which would have to surround the entire area, like Disneyland.

I'm not sure how you draw a conclusion using a number that has no physical meaning, and is basically used only for convenience.

How do you have a checkpoint without fencing?

Did Dirac use the classical electron radius, which we know to be incorrect? Once QM had been developed a bit, it was recognized that the electron (as with all fundamental particles) is a point particle.

E=mc2 for a particle at rest was derived years before GR was developed. The energy-momentum equation was derived by Dirac in 1928

As I had quoted: IPCC reports are neutral, policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive. They would need to have expertise in that area, and come up with strategies that could be adopted by some very diverse cultures. And seeing as this is, in large part, a cultural, religious and a political issue all tied into one (views on birth control, for example) rather than a technical one, I'm not surprised at all that they would steer clear of it. And strategies are not policies. Yes, they could say "reduce your population" but is that a realistic outcome? A strategy would need to suggest a course of action. I can't even think of what realistic paths one could recommend that a (non-authoritarian) government would be inclined to enact.

! Moderator Note I will make iNow's suggestion official. Leave the theist/atheist approach out of this discussion of suicide prevention. If you wish to discuss this in religious terms, open a thread in religion, and post credible evidence to back any claims.